To think capping child tax credits at two children will plunge more families into poverty

[SoonToBeSix]

Can't link but article is in the Daily Fail. A Tory mp has proposed capping child benefit and child tax credits at two children in order to win votes.
What happens to those children whose parents circumstances change ie redundancy or there is a contraception failure?
This government is taking welfare cuts too far while continuing to let the very rich avoid paying the correct taxes.

Custodo we only care about the amount of children people have if we the tax payer is footing the bill

sadoldbag re: adoption of children - I agree with that but also think that the parents of the children should not receive further child benefits if they have subsequent children, ie. be subject to the same cap. The benefits due to those adoptive children should pass to the adoptive parents, irrespective of any other carer benefits they may receive.

I've been on a pay freeze for 6 years, I am not thrilled about the MPs pay either.

But that isn't what we're discussing. Or is it? Should all discussions about how money is spent in this country go "shut up because MPs get this amount so because of that everyone and everything should get all the money they want?"

I didn't say otherwise MoreThan; I said you would need to be stable financially before adopting. Stable finances does not equate not claiming tax credits.

Until they sort out the tax payments of the rich, cut down mps money spends and increase nmw to be in percentage of inflation reducing the welfare bill more is not going to solve anything.

I don't know how to put what I want to say so bear with me.

It is not the notion of a cap that I disagree with, more the notion of a cap being introduced and the reasoning behind it being explained as Austerity Measures, or "there is no money" when in actual fact, there is money. There is money being directed to people who are well off in various ways.

I would call someone with 9 kids irresponsible whether their income was 10k or 100k. But why can't people see that while we have turned our heads to look at them, the wealthy are making off with tax, getting pay rises, and generally living it up?

the government are bringing in these measures becuase of the bullshit they claim is needed - they spin this as austerity

it is in this guise that there is a systematic attack on people who claim benefits

whilst some 340 MPs, including ministers, have used the parliamentary expenses system to recoup the cost of heating their second homes, they spout this 'spare bedroom' nonsense and tax people on it

how can you not see it is related

Wannabe - I think you explained that perfectly.

yes i believe all discussions of this ilk should start

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said our Commons representatives claimed £23.8 million in non-payroll expenses in 2012/2013

and there is ...............35 BILLION

35 FUCKING BILLION

IN uncollected taxes

it is in this context i am going to whinge about poor people

absolutley

Actually it was a stolen idea blogged by a UKIP member and nicked by the Tories. The blog (by a disabled lady) funnily enough said a cap shouldn't be placed on the household if one child had a disability.

Fwiw I wouldn't like to see any child go hungry because of the decisions made by its parents, and as a lot of people have already said, what about those who are working then lose their jobs?

We'll be like china next with a one child limit then they'll realise later on that they fucked up when one child has to support both parents and possibly grandparents.

The idea actually goes back to the 70's...I think it was a royal who suggested it.

Custardo... I'll add my voice to the others who say that you're 'off point' and I think you're trying to shut down the discussion by making the same unrelated points again.

All of what you say is correct but to keep bleating about it doesn't change it a whit does it?

The capping of child benefits is going to receive support. Capping MPs' benefits would receive universal support but guess what - only the former is up for consideration. Fair in the grand scheme of things? No. Fair in terms of making parents in receipt of benefits consider the decision to have more than two children, in line with some working parents who can't afford more than one or even less than that? Absolutely.

Can't add anything more to that, Lying.

Custardo and wannabe I'll add my voice to the ones who think you have a point.

Love these sheep who flock to bahhh at the latest thing politicians point at saying 'how dare they' while your backs are turned people, they are stuffing their pockets.

They grab as much as they can during their time in office like some fucked up supermarket sweep despite most of them being rich to begin with

Its about time a party was brave enough to do it. Better to have scrapped it completely but a good start.

Children are a choice, nobody is forced to have them and contraception is free and widely available. Used properly, doubled up if need be, there are few "accidents". If you cant afford children, then save, get a better job etc. Far too many have them expecting others to pay. First question a lot of new parents seem to ask is "what benefits can i now claim"? Personal responsibility seems to have gone out of the window with so many choosing not to work or working few hours. You see it on here and other boards, people asking how to maximise WTC, how to get around the change from IS to JSA (amazing how many people study at this point when they could have done so in the five years of doing nothing) or how much extra in benefits another child would add.

The money could be far better spent on education, hospitals, hospices etc. Let people be responsible for themselves. Its them, not the government, who control their lives.

i am trying to widen the context, to narrow the context to this one point is short sighted and to suggest that it is unfair on working parents ( many claim benefits btw) is bizarre - like this is a fairer comparison than the one i am suggesting which is to collect 38 billion pounds worth of taxes.

Of course MPs expenses are relevant to this argument.
The argument is about spending public money.

But then Tory voters would prefer money going to buy IBS his Y fronts than fund ANOTHER child on benefits.

38 billion in taxes which remain uncollected could sort schools and hospitals happymummyofone

it is not an either / or situation where we have to squeeze the welfare state

to pay for schools and hospitals

actually we could do both

There have been articles in our local paper, campaigning for people to give to food banks etc. They sometimes have case studies on families. They often have families with 5 or 6 children who are surviving on £60 a week. If you are living on £60 a week with 3 or 4 children, you should not be adding another child to your brood. Also, regarding bullying partners, surely taking away a financial incentive (10% increase in income for those on £60 a week) may take away some of the incentive for these partners to keep forcing women to have babies.

do both in terms of paying for both - not squeezing both btw!

having been studying since my children turned one, with an actual supportive husband who I can 100% rely on to parent while I'm out, and to look after them while I do my homework, I can entirely see why a single parent would start when her children turned five and were full-time at school.

Nothing amazing about it...

You know what HappyMummy I agree with you. Lets scrap all child related benefits and force employers to pay a wage which allows people on low wages to live without claiming. .....but I guess that bit ISN'T on your agenda.

I have relatives in Europe who get nothing ...bit nor do they need it as Employers pay enough that basic living costs can be covered.

I suspect then we might see more family planning.

Things... I'll concede that you have a point. I've had a long and involved local authority career and I'll tell you something that when I heard it made me very angry. It was my first week in the job and we were having complaints over some service we should have provided - and hadn't - for no legitimate reason. We didn't provide it again the following week and had a barrage of complaints. My boss said... "It's not like the private sector, Lying, what are the public going to do? Move?" That was the attitude and it was widespread across the council. They are all actually pretty much the same in my opinion.

So it is with Government; you can get them out and there's a new one waiting in the wings ready to lie/go back on their word and generally muck things up just like the previous one.

So, how do you propose, in the absence of Guy Fawkes and his crew, that we depose/dispose of (delete as appropriate) the current Government? And, having done that - what do we have it its place?

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers... there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit.

Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people"

custardo - then this proposal will affect very few people, so where's the problem?